Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

London to Montreal is 700km.
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/London,+O...673919!2d45.5018869!3e0?hl=en&authuser=0

Vancouver to Golden is also 700km
https://www.google.ca/maps/dir/Vancouver...631367!2d51.2961188!3e0?hl=en&authuser=0

Vancouver to Calgary is about 1000km.
Vancouver to Edmonton is about 1,150 km.
Having a daily to them would make sense.
Having 2 trains a day would make sense.

I get the feeling you love your jacked up diesel truck.

I get the feeling you've never heard of a plane. Air Canada offers $141 for a round trip to Edmonton; VIA starts at $210. If it's that expensive to run a train over the mountains every week, you can forget about service twice a day.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That still does not explain how North Vancouver, Victoria, and Duncan are more dense.

Then you didn't click the link. Duncan is surrounded by ALR. Victoria is hemmed in by the Pacific. North Van is hemmed in by the Pacific and the DNV. All three have literally nowhere left to sprawl.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I get the feeling you've never heard of a plane. Air Canada offers $141 for a round trip to Edmonton; VIA starts at $210. If it's that expensive to run a train over the mountains every week, you can forget about service twice a day.

Interestingly, It is about $800 by air and under $400 for the train between London and Montreal.

I guess that's what happens when you run more than once every few days.

Interestingly, Amtrak to Eugene, which is about 700km is about $250 USD.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Then you didn't click the link. Duncan is surrounded by ALR. Victoria is hemmed in by the Pacific. North Van is hemmed in by the Pacific and the DNV. All three have literally nowhere left to sprawl.

I did. You said that the only reason the cities of the CVRD are so dense is due to the Skytrain. This all points to other factors. If it was the Skytrain, then the cities that it touches would be the highest density.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Interestingly, It is about $800 by air and under $400 for the train between London and Montreal.

I guess that's what happens when you run more than once every few days.

Interestingly, Amtrak to Eugene, which is about 700km is about $250 USD.

It's amazing what you can do on relatively flat terrain with several big cities and zero mountains along the way (i.e. not BC-Alberta).

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I did. You said that the only reason the cities of the CVRD are so dense is due to the Skytrain. This all points to other factors. If it was the Skytrain, then the cities that it touches would be the highest density.

What I actually said was that SkyTrain (and metro systems in general) does a better job of shaping density and transit mode share than any kind of commuter rail does. So far, every single data point has proved me correct.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

What I actually said was that SkyTrain (and metro systems in general) does a better job of shaping density and transit mode share than any kind of commuter rail does. So far, every single data point has proved me correct.

Then explain White Rock.
It does not have commuter rail.
It does not have Skytrain.
It does not have express bus.

So, could it be that something else caused it and made it so dense?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Then explain White Rock.
It does not have commuter rail.
It does not have Skytrain.
It does not have express bus.

So, could it be that something else caused it and made it so dense?

Yup - South Surrey, the ALR and the Pacific boxing it in, just like the others. Even then, with its NIMBY City Council vetoing anything higher than three floors, it's going to start falling in the ranks sooner or later.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Then explain White Rock.
It does not have commuter rail.
It does not have Skytrain.
It does not have express bus.

So, could it be that something else caused it and made it so dense?

It's vewy, vewy tiny. It's only 5 sq. km. and almost completely built out. It has no industrial areas. It has a thin strip of green area along the waterfront and only one park of any size.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Even then, with its NIMBY City Council vetoing anything higher than three floors, it's going to start falling in the ranks sooner or later.

I hadn't checked, but there's a new mayor who want to see permit times reduced and more affordable housing, and one councillor who was opposed to the four storey building wasn't re-elected, and the other two councillors who opposed it both ran for mayor, and both lost. So maybe they'll see density continue to grow a bit more.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Interestingly, It is about $800 by air and under $400 for the train between London and Montreal.

I guess that's what happens when you run more than once every few days.

Interestingly, Amtrak to Eugene, which is about 700km is about $250

If you mean Vancouver to Eugene, it's way cheaper than $250 on the Cascades, but if you don't want to stay in Seattle overnight you'll be on the Cantrail bus to Seattle to catch the train(s), hoping there isn't a lineup at the border, there's nobody on the bus that US Homeland Security are unhappy with, and the I-5 is clear and you make the connection OK. After that it's generally a pleasant ride down, the whole trip taking about 12 hours into Eugene. Flying is more like $400, with a change at Seatac, so about 6 hours plus the time on transit getting to the airport, and the check in and US Customs clearance.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yup - South Surrey, the ALR and the Pacific boxing it in, just like the others. Even then, with its NIMBY City Council vetoing anything higher than three floors, it's going to start falling in the ranks sooner or later.

But you said the only way to make a city more dense was with a Skytrain.

Originally Posted by Changing City

It's vewy, vewy tiny. It's only 5 sq. km. and almost completely built out. It has no industrial areas. It has a thin strip of green area along the waterfront and only one park of any size.

Oh, I understand why it is so dense. I am just showing our resident Translink middle manager that Skytrain does not equal density. It may contribute to it, but it is no guarantee. Proof of that? Stations like Naniamo are not full of tall skyscrapers.

Originally Posted by Changing City

If you mean Vancouver to Eugene, it's way cheaper than $250 on the Cascades, but if you don't want to stay in Seattle overnight you'll be on the Cantrail bus to Seattle to catch the train(s), hoping there isn't a lineup at the border, there's nobody on the bus that US Homeland Security are unhappy with, and the I-5 is clear and you make the connection OK. After that it's generally a pleasant ride down, the whole trip taking about 12 hours into Eugene. Flying is more like $400, with a change at Seatac, so about 6 hours plus the time on transit getting to the airport, and the check in and US Customs clearance.

It may be cheaper, but I picked the cheapest one next Wednesday. The issue in Canada is that there are no other large metro areas in BC. So, why not make this one as good to get around as you can?

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Then explain White Rock.
It does not have commuter rail.
It does not have Skytrain.
It does not have express bus.

So, could it be that something else caused it and made it so dense?

White Rock exists because there used to be passenger heavy rail service, which let it become a seaside destination for day-tripping city folks, as well as a stop on the Vancouver-Seattle rail corridor. It has cruised on its 'seaside resort' character ever since, with higher density development enabling retirees to 'live by the sea' and be 'away from the city', while simultaneously driving local preservationists nuts because the mid-rises and short towers are 'the city' that they've been happy to avoid all these years.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

London to Montreal is 700km.

Vancouver to Golden is also 700km

Vancouver to Calgary is about 1000km.
Vancouver to Edmonton is about 1,150 km.
Having a daily to them would make sense.
Having 2 trains a day would make sense.

Please don't tell me you're comparing a train that goes from London (405k) through Hamilton (579k), Oakville (211k), Toronto (2.93 million), Oshawa (170k), and Kingston (137k) en route to Montreal (1.78 million).

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

But you said the only way to make a city more dense was with a Skytrain.

This is weird. First they said "SkyTrain's done a better job of densification than commuter trains have in the same amount of time", which you then interpreted as "SkyTrain is the best way at densifying", and now you're interpreting as "SkyTrain is the only way to densify". You're putting words into their mouth.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

But you said the only way to make a city more dense was with a Skytrain.

Oh, I understand why it is so dense. I am just showing our resident Translink middle manager that Skytrain does not equal density. It may contribute to it, but it is no guarantee. Proof of that? Stations like Naniamo are not full of tall skyscrapers.

Didn't say that, and don't work for TransLink - we've already established both. You've gone full Karen. Never go full Karen.

And yet practically every other SkyTrain station in the CoV is dense or densifying. If a City Council is unwilling to rezone the neighbourhood, developers can take the initiative and ask for a spot rezoning; aside from one townhome in Maple Ridge, neither the WCE nor GO nor EXO has spurred either.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

This is weird. First they said "SkyTrain's done a better job of densification than commuter trains have in the same amount of time", which you then interpreted as "SkyTrain is the best way at densifying", and now you're interpreting as "SkyTrain is the only way to densify". You're putting words into their mouth.

Skytrain/subways/LRT is good for densifying if the outlying suburbs are an extension of the urban core, ie. there are no farmlands, large waterways, forests, mountains in between. Commuter/intercity trains help outlying towns/villages/cities to densify further because building a skytrain all the way there just isn't efficient. For instance, the amount of infrastructure laid along uninhabited or lightly populated areas such as farms, vineyards, grazing land or through forests just doesn't make any sense.

Here in the Lower Mainland, commuter train linkage can help the entire area become more economically enhanced without authorities having to pay for the extra infrastructure works or maintenance costs associated with the skytrain.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

Skytrain/subways/LRT is good for densifying if the outlying suburbs are an extension of the urban core, ie. there are no farmlands, large waterways, forests, mountains in between...

With exceptions: Langley's cut off by the ALR, but they've been adding midrises and highrises regardless, and they've got a new OCP for the future station areas.

Originally Posted by Vin

... Commuter/intercity trains help outlying towns/villages/cities to densify further because building a skytrain all the way there just isn't efficient. Not only that, commuter train linkage can help the entire area become more economically enhanced with such a connectivity.

WCE/EXO/GO stations being 99% parking lot seems to contradict that statement. Commuter rail may sometimes be helpful for trips into the city, but evidence would suggest that most non-metro residents work and play within their own town. And commuter rail's infrastructure is a bit more pricey than advocates would like to think it is.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

And yet practically every other SkyTrain station in the CoV is dense or densifying. If a City Council is unwilling to rezone the neighbourhood, developers can take the initiative and ask for a spot rezoning; aside from one townhome in Maple Ridge, neither the WCE nor GO nor EXO has spurred either.

I'd argue that having a few stations that don't immediately have dense population or employment when a Skytrain is initially built isn't a big deal. They're built as part of the package, and don't cost a huge amount to build. Eventually they're likely to see higher density development just because they're convenient for transit, and adding to an underdeveloped area can be less disruptive and easier than adding more density to a location where there's already been investment. They're built as part of the package, and don't cost a huge amount to build.

As we've seen with the Canada line, adding a station after the line is up and running can be more difficult than if it had been built with the initial project, even if there wasn't much development in the location at the time.

Although, to be clear, I'm not advocating a full-blown streetcar in the forest scenario - that's not going to be money well-spent in the 21st Century.

[4th Avenue at Waterloo St, 1909, City of Vancouver Archives CVA 7-79]

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

aside from one townhome in Maple Ridge, neither the WCE nor GO nor EXO has spurred either.

With a park and ride model and am/pm rush hour service, people still need their cars, so you're not going to get dense development.
You'd need all day frequent service for that.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Sure, except the Lakeshore East, Lakeshore West, Kitchener and Stouffville lines in Toronto have had 2WAD for over five years... and they're still flat.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, except the Lakeshore East, Lakeshore West, Kitchener and Stouffville lines in Toronto have had 2WAD for over five years... and they're still flat.

The park and ride model is strong....

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

Please don't tell me you're comparing a train that goes from London (405k) through Hamilton (579k), Oakville (211k), Toronto (2.93 million), Oshawa (170k), and Kingston (137k) en route to Montreal (1.78 million).

Ok, I won't.

Originally Posted by CanSpice

This is weird. First they said "SkyTrain's done a better job of densification than commuter trains have in the same amount of time", which you then interpreted as "SkyTrain is the best way at densifying", and now you're interpreting as "SkyTrain is the only way to densify". You're putting words into their mouth.

No, what I am doing is pulling out the truth by focusing on what someone says. This world does not work on absolutes, yet some posters here like to think that way.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Didn't say that, and don't work for TransLink - we've already established both. You've gone full Karen. Never go full Karen.

And yet practically every other SkyTrain station in the CoV is dense or densifying. If a City Council is unwilling to rezone the neighbourhood, developers can take the initiative and ask for a spot rezoning; aside from one townhome in Maple Ridge, neither the WCE nor GO nor EXO has spurred either.

...I'll get back to you on density and commuter rail.....

Originally Posted by Vin

Skytrain/subways/LRT is good for densifying if the outlying suburbs are an extension of the urban core, ie. there are no farmlands, large waterways, forests, mountains in between. Commuter/intercity trains help outlying towns/villages/cities to densify further because building a skytrain all the way there just isn't efficient. For instance, the amount of infrastructure laid along uninhabited or lightly populated areas such as farms, vineyards, grazing land or through forests just doesn't make any sense.

Here in the Lower Mainland, commuter train linkage can help the entire area become more economically enhanced without authorities having to pay for the extra infrastructure works or maintenance costs associated with the skytrain.

Some do not want to think that anything but Skytrain can do that.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

With exceptions: Langley's cut off by the ALR, but they've been adding midrises and highrises regardless, and they've got a new OCP for the future station areas.

WCE/EXO/GO stations being 99% parking lot seems to contradict that statement. Commuter rail may sometimes be helpful for trips into the city, but evidence would suggest that most non-metro residents work and play within their own town. And commuter rail's infrastructure is a bit more pricey than advocates would like to think it is.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Sure, except the Lakeshore East, Lakeshore West, Kitchener and Stouffville lines in Toronto have had 2WAD for over five years... and they're still flat.

So, What are the top 10 densest cities in Ontario?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_in_Ontario
1) Toronto
2) Mississauga
3) Brampton
4) Richmond Hill
5) Kitchener
6) Waterloo
7) Markham
8) Guelph
9) Windsor
10) Barrie

All except for 2 of them have GO train stations. 1 of them is beside a city that has GO train service

1 has the most RT; subways, LRTs and Streetcars. 5&6 have an LRT. 2,3,4, and 7 have BRT of some sort. Most of them have farmland and all except 9 and 10 are dealing with the Greenbelt.

I would argue that having a good mix of RT and some sort of Commuter service is key for the cities to become more dense. There are other things that lead to the need to become more dense, and there are certain local issues that will dictate density, but it seems that commuter service is key.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_towns_in_Quebec

Hey, look, the top 10 densest cities of Quebec all have EXO service.

Imagine how dense cities like Surrey and Burnaby would be with commuter rail. Other provinces point to them moving up.